Latest price-tag of our inbound F-35 fighter jets is 119.5M AUD per airframe with 72 on firm with 28 optioned; PM stated 17B budgeted with all-up purchase and running costs 24B AUD.

Canada has purchased our F-18 “Classics”.

We are a nation of 24M people, geographically sound with respect to genuine threat.
Bearing in mind past disastrous Defence spend (Collins Class Submarine / RAN Helicopter), are we allowing our government to bury the struggling Australian tax payer even further into misery with these “nice to have” big power nation type purchases?

Yes indeed. A age old bomber that had such poor dispatch reliability that when conflict finally arose, we couldn’t send it anywhere.
Great airshow crowd pleaser though.

Exclusive it is. Per capita we sit as number 8 in the world for overall defence spending, a top 10 spot for a peaceful nation with our geographical separation?
I’d be interested to see where this order puts us.

To broaden the scope slightly. I’d suggest that given the lead in time it takes for the development of such technology, is there a risk here that the “manned fighter jet” is soon to be redundant?
A serious question given this degree of “investment”.

“Great Deal?” - 18 airframes for 500M USD. Great deal for Canada 🇨🇦 alright!
I’d be asking that if Canada sees value in our F18’s, why did we feel the need to offload them?
Canada’s GDP per capita is similar to ours.

Dont forget, this F-35 order is on top our recent 24 F18 Super Hornet purchase (a cheeky 10B). How much “cutting edge” defence technology does one small country need?

Why did we not just extend the F-18 Super Hornet order proportionately to our needs?
Clearly a highly versatile platform (with two engines) that we already have significant IP and investment.

Four Corners ran a story on this 5 years ago. Worth a look.

Reach for the Sky - Four Corners

..which it wasn’t.

How owe many of our Hornets have we lost to mechanical failure?

*disclaimer* I already know the answer. :8

...and how many have landed on one engine?

I dont know know that one. :)

Better spent on cool jets rather than polli pay increases and consultancy fees.

but seriously? Its a generational step and the classics are old, end of life.

The decisions been made. At least, for a country with a tiny defence force, we have spent the money on “5th Generation” capabilities.

now if we only had fuel and missiles should a conflict erupt. 🙄

Hasn’t engine technology improved significantly from the early ‘80s? If we can now carry the same pax on two that we used to on four I presume that similarly the reliability and efficiency of combat aircraft engines has rendered the ‘must have two engines’ argument obsolete? How many Hawks have we lost due to a failure of their one engine? How many PC9s?

Not claiming anything, just wondering.

Agreed.
Problem is while an engine failure on a training aircraft is unacceptable, however is a manageable risk. An engine failure on a combat aircraft over enemy territory....that’s another question.

In the eighties it was Canadian Defence Force policy to buy only twin engine fighters, given the hostile terrain in the Arctic, where any forseeable country defence would be fought. Both the F-20 and F-16 were disqualified on that basis alone.

The Canadian purchase of our Hornets is like our Sea Sprite deal...good money for museum pieces.

NATO countries might have a valid argument about fifth generation fighters given the threats in any forseeable theatre. Since Trump I think the F-35 might make sense, since the Calvary might not answer the phone. But buying a platform without a robust supply of ready munitions is the definition of cynical political malfeasance.

Despite all of the foregoing, does anyone think that the world will ever again see a huge set-piece conventional battle? No one can play armour+infantry against the west, nor can they do blue-water navy fleet action. In no category,in fact, except suicidal fanatic can I imagine wholesale effective resistance to the west. (As it is currently constituted-my position may change next week after the next Twitter storm)

FFS What is this Carlo Kopp rubbish?

Modern battle plan and strategic doctrine (and that of our allies) is based on information, communication and coordination.

Combined services and elements acting together to achieve your tactical and strategic goals.

F35 + P8 + Wedge-tail (and Triton) is a huge part of that equation. Can't do it with any other type that is available or interoperable with allies. That's before the political and geo-political advantages / realities are considered.

Is it still school holidays somewhere?

Iron Bar, at whom was your spray aimed?

Also...can you expand on "strategic goals" as an element of DF capability? Given the dearth of actual strategic capability? Also, assuming the most likely of threats, can you also comment on a current fighter such as the (say) F-15 teamed with the ASW/AWACS/JSTARS platforms?

Spray?

- Steategic goals. Whatever the government of the day determines. That is, or has been support to our major ally in several theaters and regional stabilization to our North. (Effective support to major ally negates the need for strategic capability in the sense I think you are referring)

F15 doesn't have the sensor and communication capabilities of F35. As far as I know F15 no longer in production?

-

Look at the last Red Flag results. F35 knocked down almost all their adversaries, before they were seen/encountered....then ran away. That’s how it is designed.

I don!t know if the F-15 line is still running, actually. On that basis I guess the question is moot. If you need a new fighter then you have we to buy fifth generation. And that really means, given realpolitik, the F-35.

Strategic: When I was a boy that meant the Westinghouse W-63. It probably still does in whatever the current version.

Anyway... I think the Chinese discovered that you don't need to invade anywhere if you have time and money.

Boeing still offering developments of it.

no one can play against the West due to American military might with some U.K. and French back up..
if that means sucking it up and buying the USA’s new toy then tough. Or of course any country could gomit alone

propaganda. It could fly further and faster than anything we have now. It had an endless stream of cheap parts and it’s value was as a deterrent with a former Indonesians Defense officer admitting he had said in meetings with his President many times “We should not provoke the Australians, do you one they have a fleet of aircraft that could put a bomb through the window of this building before we even knew it was here”.
so much of the modernvweaponry and it could carry and deliver the lot... F-35 can’t even carry a bunker buster. It was a stupid and ideological decision to retire them. The so called failure in a test rig at DSTO used as an excuse was later found to have been incorrectly set up to the point that it subjected the component to 10 times normal flight stresses. That’s like loading a 747-400 with 4,000 tons then saying it has a compromised structure when it collapses.

yeh, except for all we know in his secret meeting President Baboon probably gave Putin a file with all of the US’ defense technology on it in exchange for the pee tape... he was certainly crawling up the dictators arse like Edmond ascending Everest during the press conference after spending a week denigrating and spreading lies about NATO and those French, et al ‘allies’. The United States Senate voted last week 98 to 0 to stop him from sending United States’ citizens to be ‘interviewed’ by Putin’s people... the very thought he considers that “... a wonderful offer” shows how historically, diplomatically, strategically, intellectually and reality deprived he is and why the United States cannot be relied on while they have a brain damaged chimp as their Head of State and Government who’s ego is more important than committing the occasional act of treason.

Or something to stoke nationalistic sentiment during an economic downturn.

The British had exactly this idea back in 1957. Google ‘1957 Statement on Defence’. Long story short it didn’t work.

Yes that was over 50 years ago BUT I would argue a SAM system is no substitute for a fighter aircraft. Recent missile attacks on Saudi Arabia have been intercepted by US made Patriot missile defence systems. Plenty of news stories out there that they fail or missed a lot of incoming ballistic missiles. There’s even videos on YouTube.

And again I will refer to the experience of Israel. They completely destroyed a well set out SAM defence in Syria in 1982. At the time it contained arguably the best Russian equipment money could buy and it was set up by the Russians (so it should have worked properly).

The only other thing to add is a fighter aircraft can loiter with intent and provide a threat without actually releasing any weapons. It provides a ‘step up’ in threat level so to speak. Pure missile defence doesn’t. It’s either ON or OFF ie war or peace. I’ll think you’ll find the world can have many shades of grey!